This measure is a brief version of the Parenting Stress Index (Abidin, 1995), a widely used and well-researched measure of parenting stress (the full PSI is also reviewed in this database). The PSI-SF has 36 items from the original 120-item PSI. Items are identical to those in the original version.

The version was developed in response to clinicians’ and researchers’ need for a shorter measure of parenting stress and was based on Castaldi’s (1990) factor analysis of the original PSI, which suggested the presence of three factors.

Consistent with this analysis, the PSI-SF yields scores on the following subscales: 1) Parental Distress, 2) Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction, and 3) Difficult Child. Similar to the full PSI, it also has a validity scale.

Domain(s) Assessed :

Anxiety/Mood (Internalizing Symptoms)

Relationships & Attachment

Parent, Caregiver, Family Mental Health & Functioning

Language(s) :

English

Chinese

Dutch

Finnish

French

Greek

Icelandic

Italian

Japanese

Polish

Portuguese

Serbian

Spanish

Swedish

Age Range:

10-12

Measure Type:

Screening

# of Items:

36

Measure Format:

Questionnaire

Average Time to Complete (min):

10

Reporter Type:

Parent/Caregiver

Average Time to Score (min):

10

Periodicity:

Unknown

Response Format:

In general, items are scored using the following 5-point scale:

1) SA (Strongly Agree)

2) A (Agree)

3) NS (Not Sure)

4) D (Disagree)

5) SD (Strongly Disagree)

Materials Needed:

Paper/Pencil

Other Materials Needed:

Computer (optional)

Sample Item(s):

Domains

Scale

Sample Items

Defensive responding

not available

Total stress

Parental distress

not available

Parent-child dysfunctional interaction

not available

Difficult child

not available

Information Provided:

Areas of Concern/Risks

Clinician Friendly Output

Continuous Assessment

Graphs (e.g. of elevated scale)

Percentiles

Raw Scores

Standard Scores

For Specific Populations:

Military & Veteran Families

Training

Administration Training:

Manual/Video

Training to Interpret:

Manual/Video

Prior Experience Psych Testing/Interpretation

Parallel/Alternate Forms

Parallel Form:

No

Alternate Form:

No

Different Age Forms:

No

Altered Version Forms:

Yes

Describe Alternative Forms:

The PSI-Full-Length Version, upon which this measure is based, has 120 items. This measure is also reviewed in the database.

The development of the PSI-Full-Length Version, upon which this measure is based, is described in the PSI review in this database. The Short Form was developed using factor analysis (see Notes below).

Construct Validity:

Validity Type

Not known

Not found

Nonclincal Samples

Clinical Samples

Diverse Samples

Convergent/Concurrent

Yes

Yes

Yes

Discriminant

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sensitive to Change

Yes

Intervention Effects

Yes

Yes

Longitudinal/Maturation Effects

Sensitive to Theoretically Distinct Groups

Yes

Yes

Yes

Factorial Validity

Yes

Yes

References for Construct Validity:

The PSI/SF was developed from factor analysis of the PSI-Full-Length Version. Principal components factor analysis with a varimax rotation was conducted, and items were retained based on the criteria of having factor loadings >.4 on only 1 factor (although some exceptions were made to this criteria). Data from a second sample was used to replicate the factor analysis.

The PSI-SF has been found to be negatively associated with parenting selfefficacy and positively related to the number of family risk factors (Raikes & Thompson, 2005). PSI-SF Difficult Child scores correlated in the expected direction with observations of maternal intrusiveness and sensitivity in a sample of mothers and 6-month-old infants (Calkins, Hungerford, & Dedmon, 2004).

Maternal scores on the PSI-SF have also been found to be related to increased risk for developing insecure attachment in a sample of premature infants (Laganiére, Tessier, & Nadeau, 2003). In addition, maternal parenting concerns during pregnancy are related to later PSI-SF scores (Combs-Orme, Cain, & Wilson, 2004).

The PSI/SF has been found to correlate with the Full-Length form: Total Stress and Total Stress=.94, Parental Distress and Parent Domain=.92, Difficult Child and Child Domain=.87.

PSI-SF scores decreased significantly following a prevention program for neglect conducted with a high-risk, predominantly African American sample.

Improvements were maintained at 6-month follow-up (DePanfilis & Dubowitz, 2005). They have also been found to change following participation in a child crisis care program (rural sample; Cowen, 1998) and a parent education program (Wolfe & Hirsch, 2003).

2. In a sample of foster care children and their caregivers, PSI-SF scores were related to participation in treatment, with kin caregivers more likely than non-kin caregivers to complete treatment (PCIT) if they had higher levels of parenting stress (Timmer, Sedlar, & Urquiza, 2004).

3. In a sample of military families, the PSI-SF was a significant predictor of Child Abuse Potential Scores for both mothers and fathers (Schaeffer,Alexander, Bethke, & Kretz, 2005).

4. In a sample of 47 children referred to treatment due to sexual behavior problems (25% had been sexually abused, 47% had experienced physicalabuse, 58% had witnessed interparental violence), PSI-SF mean scores were shown to be elevated (Silovsky & Niec, 2002).

6. The PSI-SF was used to validate an analysis that identified two clusters of abusive parents. “Cluster 1: parents were warm, positive, sensitive, and engaged during interactions with children whereas Cluster 2 parents were relatively negative, disengaged, or intrusive, and insensitive.” Cluster 1 parents had lower PSI-SF scores than did Cluster 1 parents (Haskett, Smith, & Sabourin, 2004).

7. Parents of children with traumatic brain injuries have been found to have higher PSI-SF scores than did parents of uninjured children (Hawley, Ward, Magnay, & Long, 2003).

STUDIES WITH DIVERSE POPULATIONS1. The PSI-SF has been used in a number of studies with parents of children with health problems and disabilities, with evidence of relation between parenting stress and support, income, and children’s health care needs and impairment, thus supporting its validity (Button, Pianta, & Marvin, 2001; Smith, Oliver, & Innocenti, 2001; Waisbren et al., 2004).

2. The measure has also been used with parents of children with autism, with maladaptive and adaptive child behavior being related to PSI-SF scores (Tomanik, Harris, & Hawkins, 2004).

3. The PSI-SF has been used in numerous studies with adolescent parents, with data supporting its validity in this population (e.g., Spencer, Kalill, Larson, Spieker, & Gilchrist, 2002).

However, results of multiple regression analyses supported a 3-factor model. Regression analyses for difficult child found that the CPRS-R, Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and family income contributed variance. Regression analyses for Parent-Child Dysfunctional Interaction and Parental Distress showed that the BSI and family income contributed significant variance. These analyses provide support for the concurrent validity of the measure.

5. All scales of the PSI-SF were found to be related to mothers’ strategies for facilitating peer interactions in a sample of low-income African American mothers (Bhavnagri, 1999).

6. The measure has been used with Kenyan grandmothers, with data providing support for the validity of the measure in this population (Oburu & Palmërus, 2003).

7. Two studies have examined the use of the measure with Chinese-speaking groups. In a sample of Taiwanese parents, parents of children with cancer showed higher PSI-SF scores than those of parents of children with developmental disabilities (Hung, Wu, & Yeh, 2004). The study also shows internal consistency for all PSI-SF scales >.80.

It is expected that the Short Form version of the PSI shares in the validity of the full-length version because it is a direct derivative of the longer form. Existing findings are consistent with this hypothesis.

Translation Quality

Language(s) Other Than English:

Language:

Translated

Back Translated

Reliable

Good Psychometrics

Similar Factor Structure

Norms Available

Measure Developed for this Group

1. Spanish

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2. Chinese

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3. Portuguese

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

4. Finnish

Yes

Yes

5. Japanese

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6. Italian

Yes

Yes

7. Hebrew

Yes

Yes

8. Dutch

Yes

Yes

9. French

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

10. Icelandic

Yes

Yes

Population Information

Population Used For Measure Development:

From Abidin, 1995:

Sample: 570 mothers selected from a well-care pediatric practice in Virginia and 270 mothers from the same practice.

Age of Children: 10-84 months (M=43, SD=9.7)

Gender: 47% female, 53% male

Children’s Ethnicity: 87% White, 10% African American, and 3% Other

Marital status: 88% married, 6% single, 4% divorced, and 2% separated

Education: 8th grade or less (22.5%), 9th-12th (37.4% ), vocational or some college (37.4%), and college graduates (37.4%)

Measure has demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity in which populations?:

Physical Abuse

Sexual Abuse

Medical Trauma

Domestic Violence

Neglect

Other

Use with Diverse Populations:

Population Type:

Measure Used with Members of this Group

Members of this Group Studied in Peer-Reviewed Journals

Reliable

Good Psychometrics

Norms Available

Measure Developed for this Group

1. Developmental disability

Yes

2. Lower socio-economic status

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3. Rural populations

Yes

Yes

4. African Americans

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Pros & Cons/References

Pros:

1. The measure offers a quick, easy way to screen for parenting stress.

2. The psychometric properties of the PSI-SF look good.

3. The measure is widely used.

4. The concept of parenting stress is an important one for families that have experienced traumatic events.

Cons:

1. The Short Form version of the PSI examines the parent-child dyad in much less depth than does the full-length version.

2. The measure is face valid, and in mandated samples (as with other measures), many parents score low even when they have high levels of stress. Although this can be addressed with the validity scale, it is nevertheless a problem when conducting outcome research.

3. The ability of the measure to detect change due to treatment in clinical populations and in trauma samples has not yet been examined; however, studies are under way, and it is expected that the short form will have similar results as those found with the full version.

4. Some researchers who have attempted to use a Spanish version of this measure with low-income communities have found that research participants have a hard time understanding specific items. The problem does not seem to stem from the translation itself but with the use of double negatives, which may be harder to process in the Spanish language.

DePanfilis, D., & Dubowitz, H. (2005). Family connections: A program for preventing child neglect. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 10(2), 108-123.

Silovsky, J. F., & Niec, L. (2002). Characteristics of young children with sexual behavior problems: A pilot study. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 7(3), 187-197.